Letters Page

Published: 12/03/2010

SIR, – From a distance, I have been following the arguments for and against the replacement of Union Terrace Gardens.

It seems to me that there is a fear that anything new will be worse than what Aberdeen has. This fear is no doubt due to a number of “improvements” made to the city over the past 60 years which have resulted in eyesores and the decline of Union Street. That this experience is shared the length and breadth of our country is no comfort.

However, I would suggest that such philanthropic proposals – as opposed to commercial ones – over the last century have been beneficial to hundreds of communities.

The most significant, yet least publicised, example in Scotland is in Paisley where a group of local people secretly bought up all the properties in three streets around the abbey in the early part of the last century and then gifted them to the corporation, who then created a magnificent parkland setting for Scotland’s most impressive church.

If people can separate the philanthropic from the aggressive, commercially-driven projects, then surely an improvement to Aberdeen on par with that achieved in Paisley should be possible.

Graeme McCormick,

Redhouse Cottage,

Arden.

SIR, – I recently joined the beach leisure centre to use the gym and was told they cater to all ages and all segments of society, young and old. Although I enjoy the gym, the music they play – if you can call it music – is very loud and totally unsuitable for the clientele who use the gym in the mornings when I go. They have members from their 20s to 70s using the gym, but instead of a wide variety of music, what they play is manufacture music created for 16-year-olds. No tune, no melody, nothing but a noise.

I bought an mp3 player and headphones to try to listen to something more suitable, but often the volume from the gym speakers is so loud I can’t hear the mp3 player.

I have asked them to turn it down a couple of times, which they’ve done for about an hour and then turned it full up again.

They need to get feedback from the members about what they like and don’t like and how to improve the services at the centre, but they never ask anyone so how can they learn?

I believe a trust is taking over the running of the complex so I can only hope that they do a better job.

Robert Benzies,

Farquhar Road,

Aberdeen.

SIR, – George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor, said in a speech on Sunday, February 28, that Gordon Brown had created boom and bust. George was 50% wrong. Brown has in no way created a boom. Brown bristled with pride when he entered No 11 that he would be following the Tories’ government spending plans for a couple of years. He even out-bristled himself in his second or third budget that he had reduced the national debt by a considerable sum that year. Indeed, Gordon said he would see the debt being wiped out altogether if things carried on as they had done.

Sadly for us British, it was Gordon who changed course by beginning to borrow, which raised exponentially as the years went on. He covered up the decline in living standards by government debt and cheap personal debt that kidded the general public that life was getting better.

So, Gordon only created the illusion of boom as he was creating the reality of our greatest bust – in peace time and in living memory.

In 13 years in government, Gordon Brown has created absolutely nothing that the people, the taxpayers of Britain, can take heart from.

Eric R S Davidson,

Isengard,

Bruce Street,

Macduff.

SIR, – Why is it clear to almost everyone except Network Rail that Highland open level crossings are unsafe?

It does not really matter if accidents are due to people making mistakes or ignoring signals (and Mr Coucher, the chief executive, admits that at least 5% may be due to the other things) , the fact is that people are being seriously injured, killed or suffering near-misses because barriers are not in place.

The constant bleat from the company over the years is that open crossings are safe – presumably they would also state that black is white.

Perhaps it is time that our parliament in Holyrood took a more active interest in the problem.

Alastair McCall,

Old Evanton Road,

Dingwall.

SIR, – Moments after reading the comments in the letters section about the new speed bumps on the otherwise potholed Pitfodels Station Road, (Letters page, Press and Journal, March 11) I began opening my mail, including my council tax bill.

In the letter, there was a very interesting leaflet entitled ‘Annual Performance Report 2008/2009’ which boasts, among other things, about the council’s ability to repair 78% of potholes within two working days, with the aim to make it 90% in that time.

Maybe more money spent on actually repairing the roads instead of telling us how well they are doing would stand the council in better stead.

John Daniels,

Northcote Avenue,

Aberdeen.

SIR, – Belated congratulations on your exclusive article on the power output of wind turbines (Press and Journal, March 5). The debate on the variability of wind power has raged for years. Now at last we have a precious fact. On one recent occasion, the output of the 40% windfarms in Scotland covered by the Caitness Windfarms Information Forum survey was only 3MW.

Your article tells us that the installed capacity of all onshore windfarms in Scotland is 1800MW, so 40% would be 720MW.

I have seen protagonists in this debate quote that actual output should be reckoned at 30% of installed capacity. Would I be right in my guess that this 70% cut is to allow for times when there is not enough wind, or too much wind, to arrive at an estimate of the average output over an extended period. That would be around 216MW expected average output.

What I would most like to know is the average output over the three months – December, January and February – of the windfarms covered in this survey. If the available data does not provide this information, could we be told the 10 lowest output figures, and the 10 highest figures over this period? We would then know the range of output over this past winter as a factual basis for this important debate.

John Smart,

Kinneddar Street,

Lossiemouth.

Reader's Comments

Thanks Graeme McCormick. Philanthropy is to be applauded at all scales from the local to the Andrew Carnegie's of this world. An example of this close to hand is the donation of £50 million by sir Ian Wood as a contribution to build the City Square Project. Unfortunately, this is a rare example of misplaced philanthropy. There is clearly a lot of opposition to digging up Union Terrace Gardens in the city, and I only wish that sir Ian had not picked a much-loved city centre park for his gesture. It does not look as if sir Ian is willing to spend any money on a project other than his preferred version of the City square Project. I have heard him talk at the university and he is not interested in spending his money on the site of St Nicholas House. He also made it clear that he does not want to mix and match a city square type plan with the Peacock plan. This is a shame, as sir ian Wood clearly cares about the future of Aberdeen, let's not be cynical here. He has the chance to make himself very popular with his fellow citizens if he wants to. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mike,I wouldn't think that Sir Ian Wood sees this as a ploy to increase his popularity, so as you say, 'let's not be cynical here'. In short, you are all over the place with your argument. Acts of philanthropy (and egotism)from small wealthy elites have shaped our cities far more than the forces of local democracy. Indeed can be argued to be more effective in urban design and modernisation. Most people do not wish to believe that, but it is a fact nevertheless.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, that's a reasonable point if we're talking about pre-1945 Britain. I can't think of any urban act of philanthropy since then (although I'm happy to be corrected on that). I don't think that it's a question of rich folk today being different, it's that we live in a developed society with a progressive tax regime designed to enable elected authorities to provide for citizens. So the need for philanthropy to fill the gaps that existed in Victorian times can now be expressed through other acts of philanthropy, as very well demonstrated by the Wood Family Trust which does excellent work in areas of the world that don't benefit from our wealth. This is, perhaps, why Sir Ian's pledge is being questioned, as it diverts from the narrative of urban renewal established after the last war - which is a matter of interest in a number of ways. And by the way, I don't consider individual donations to specific campaigns to be the same as what is being discussed here, as a donation is made to an existing campaign with specific objectives. This instance sees no campaign other than Sir Ian's so it cannot be compared to such examples.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

I agree Jock. I've talked to sir Ian very briefly on this. There is absolutely no doubt that he is sincere in his view that the CSP needs to be built to keep industry in Aberdeen. He also made it plain to me that his act was not egotism and I accept this. I strongly disagree with him however, and told him so. He graciously acknowledged this as the heritage argument. I think he has the chance to do much good for the city, but please leave us with our city centre park, sir Ian. For me it is a very emotional issue, as an Aberdonian who loves this city, the gardens are part of me. If the gardens are destroyed, part of me is destroyed. I reckon I'm not alone in thinking like this.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

To Eric RS Davidson I say: While Gordon Brown may not be perfect, the current disasterous fiscal state of the country was brought about by greedy moneterists who destabalised the world banking system. Mr Brown had little control over that. His party, however, introduced the minimum wage, child tax credits, pension credits etc etc, which aided many, the one mistake being the removal of the 10% tax band. Yes, many perished on the rock of cheap credit, but it was their choice to take on that debt, no one forced them to. A period of austerity is about to descend on us all and I genuinely believe Mr Brown and his government will handle that more sensitively than the Conservative Party. It is more sensible to try and keep as many employed as possible, thereby creating income to the state by way of taxes etc, than to allow mass unemployment which would appear to be Conservative Party philosophy. We have been there before remember. Let us just hope that lessons have been learned by all.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

I'm certainly with you on that one Mike, with or without Peacocks plans I don't want the CSP as proposed. All the good will and money in the world does not turn a bad plan into a good one. The economic justification has been challenged by the SCDI and the Urban Realm impact has been criticised by A+DS and many other idependent reviews. But by the most important fact is that the majority of Aberdonians do not want to lose Union Terrace Gardens.
Brian Christie
Report this comment

I likewise think that Mr Wood cares for the City, but his generosity is misplaced. Perhaps with his University connections, an endowment to one or both institutions, would benefit the community and its economy more.
Michty Me
Report this comment

Mike Sheparherd, and Greamme McCormic, i have to say i entirely disagree with you, and i dont buy into Ian Wood's Philantropy one Bit. If he genuinely cared for aberdeen, he would be willing to consider any proposal that's be likely to change the city for the better, rather than dismissing any other idea. The fact that he is so stubbornly trying to force just the one option on aberdeen is entirely selfish, discourteous, unfair to the people of aberdeen, and quite frankly bang out of order. He has placed himself above everyone else, in intellect, influence and any decision making power, and he really isn't someone that should be credible with any of that. The city square is an investment, and yes it will have retail, car parking and land to lease at it's heart no matter how much ASCEF try to deny it. It's not just an investment for him either, it's a very it's one that will bring work and profit to a very select group of already wealthy developers, businessmen and contractors who already scoop up the majourity of the city's wealth. It is always the same clique over and over again, and that is why nobody else is welcome to contribute to this project. If you want to see a True Philantrophist, read the article on Alister Jonston's pledge to donate 10,000 to the peacock scheme to help their funding. That is ttue philantrophy, a gift with no conditions or strings attached, that's nearly half of his yearly income, and certainly a bigger loss than the 50 million Ian has pledged, which is a tiny fraction of his fortune.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Alasdair Johnston my apoligies for mispelling your name above.. Ved
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Richard, nothing pre-1945 about it. You will have heard of Sainsbury no doubt. The Amercian equivalents are countless. You also refer to the narrative of urban renewal but may want to consider the opinion of Andreas Duany, the leading American architect, "Most of our best places were created by powerful elite individuals." Knock the plans but not the underlying means by which Aberdeen could benefit
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, the powerful elite individuals you speak of, and yes there have been many,from rennaisance patrons, to modern day powerful dictators. have indeed created some of the most memorable places. However they usually acted on advice and funded well discussed ideas rather than imposing their own against what a lot of architects and people thaat are qualified to do so have criticised. As for benifits to aberdeen, again this is nonsense, the civic square would be nothing but a financial burden on the city, where the only ones benifiting would be a tight cohort i mentioned above.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Jock, Wealthy elites may well have shaped out cities, but dos this mean we should let them shape our city for the worse? I don't doubt Sir Ian's intentions, having also met with him during the last year, and discussed this. What the feasibility study, and all subsequent information have failed to do is illustrate any reason to invest £90million (at least) of our own money into this. The benefits have not been shown to be any greater than the peacock plan alone. I believe Sir Ian could far better see the benefits he wants to see in this city by investing his money in a different way than this. But if it's the square or nothing, we have to choose nothing. And then we'll reap the benefits of the Peacock plan. Given the information we have, the council should let peacock start work immediately.
Michael Hodgson
Report this comment

Mike, i know it is not your intention, but in your comments of experoiences with ian wood, he comes off as very mis-guided stubborn. If he adamantly believes that there is only one single way forwad, and that the csp is it, as weak an idea as it is, than that's just plain narrow-minded. The fact that he is entirely committed to a faulty cause is no reason whatsoever to show appreciation for it.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Ved Mij, misplaced philanthropy is my take on the issue. I have a feeling that if you think the CSP / UTG issue is a major local controversy in the city at the moment, you aint seen nothing yet. It will probably go nuclear in April. That is, the ACSEF 'consultation' outcome will be announced three weeks before a likely general election date in a city with three-way marginals.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Jock, the Sainsbury family are famous for their philanthropic efforts, which are channeled through their trust/foundation. Can you point me to an example of an individual family member who has initiated a scheme on the scale of the CSP? Or smaller? I don't know of any. Clearly the Sainsbury family have donated to many charitable enterprises through their foundation, but these are made via applications to the foundation. There is a world of difference. Like I said, I'm happy to be corrected, but you've simply pointed at wealthy families who donate portions of their wealth to various causes in which they believe. This bears no relation to the pledge made by Sir Ian. Thanks in advance.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Mike, I strongly suspect that Anne Begg's seat will be a lot less marginal come the next election. As the only local MP to speak out against the CSP, having weighed up the evidence herself, and listened to her constituents, I would hope that her reward comes by way of an increased majority. I am a Labour voter myself, but given the rather dubious performance of the Westminster gov't would happily transfer my vote to another candidate on the basis of their attitude to the CSP in this election; quite frankly on a national scale there's little to choose, so it's an opportunity to focus more on local issues, and the representatives and candidates who will listen to us rather than compete at Holyrood/Westminster for committee/cabinet roles.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Ved Mij, I think I would have rephrased what you said differently. I dont agree with sir Ian whatsoever. I don't understand his logic. For instance, I'm sure that Wood Group are not based in Venezuela because they like the city centre in Caracas. Yet he is sincere in his opinion. I think I recognise something in sir Ian Wood that I see in myself to a lesser extent. Some one who has decided what is right within their own frame of reference, who has set out concrete objectives, and is utterly determined to see them through. You don't succeed in business without an attitude like this. I admire the guy yes, but I don't agree with him. He wants the city square to go ahead, I don't.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Richard, I won't belabour an abstruse point but if you do not see similarities between Simon Sainsbury (and his brother) and what Sir Ian Wood is doing, before the formers' deaths and the setting up of the Foundation then you are merely counting the angels on the end of a pin. I do remember the objections of Prince Charles, the arch enemy of modernity, when Simon Sainsbury's wing was proposed. But then Trafalgar Square is hardly the equivalent of your 'much loved city centre park'.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Mike, good on you. I appreciate the fact that you have found a way to relate to ian wood, and not just slander every move he has been making on this project, unlike a lot of others including myself. I have never doubted his business approach, that is something he is evidently very good at, but union terrace is not a concern of business, it's much broader than that. You have been polite and unoffensive in every one of your posts, somethng that is rare and admirable. I however do not think ian would should be patronised by the p&J and anyone else jumping to his defense, or by anyone trying to spare his feelings, he is fully capable of taking it on, and if he is prepared to push that hard, then he is prepared to be pushed back. All that aside, it still doesn't make the csp any more meritable nor plausible, nor does it justify the way the whole thing is conducted.
Ved Mij
Report this comment

Jock, the National Gallery had been wanting a new wing there for years, and had an architectural competition in 1982, three whole years before the Sainsbury family offered to fund it. The project was identified prior to the offer. In the case of Sir Ian, the offer has been made before the project has been identified. If you are unwilling to see the difference, then that's fine. I believe that it is a significant one, and am happy to be proved wrong, if you can provide similar examples of philanthropists offering pledges prior to a project being designed. Simon Sainsbury's example is very different. In case you need reminding, Acsef were backing the PVA project prior to Sir Ian's intervention. Had Sir Ian paid for the PVA project with enough left over to improve the gardens and maybe deck over some of the rail and road, then your comparison with Sainsbury would be entirely valid.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Richard, Last go. My recollections are hazy but at the time I seem to recall that the Sainsbury brothers forced through an alteration to the pre-existing conditions attached to the building of the extension, arguably in a fit of pique at the inclusion of commercial offices etc which had been the agreed plans for the building. So we have therefore the use of private money to change the original conception. Anyway, enough. We will find out apparently on April 12th.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Jock, you're right. Offices were a pre-requisite to help revenue funding, until the Sainsburys made enough money available to obviate that need. So it's an example of philanthropy removing the need for a commercial imperative, which is somewhat at odds with Sir Ian's gesture, which requiring an additional £90m minimum investment appears to introduce the need for commercial activity that wouldn't otherwise be there. Still, well remembered. The competition prior to the injection of Sainsbury's money led to the introduction of the phrase "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved friend", which I'm sure you'll remember well, however hazily :-) Charles was of course referring to an entry that never happened, thanks to Sainsbury's funds.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

All the fuss about the UTG and Wood/ACSEF. It should never have been allowed, but now that it has, we have very heated emotions about the whole thing. This has been because 1. The fiasco of the "Public Consultation" (Which was never public) 2 Press coverage daily by both local papers very adamant about what the citizens should do. With very little press for the original plans. 3 The downright stubborness of Ian Wood, who will not even consider any other plan. Now we have to wait for weeks to hear what ACSEF will say about their "Public consultation. For myself, I have reservations as to the reliability of them being able to give an accurate assessment of the figures. Maybe this is cynical. but weighing up their behaviour since the start, it is difficult to believe what they say. As for Ian Wood, with his stubbord attitude why is so condesending towards as he calls them the "Vocal Minority". It would look that they are not so minority. It has been stated that we need something to envigorate the city centre. WE already had it with the Peacock scheme. It has already been agreed that the Wood/ACSEF plans would not bring any more economy to the city. So please just leave the Peacock scheme to get on with it. Nobody wants to lose the gardens, all the lies we have been told about junkies, alcoholics and other undesirables have been proven as a myth fueled by ACSEF to scare the citizens. No proof, all lies.and deceit. It would be nice if an independant company would oversee the counting of the votes, as ACSEF are leaving themselves open to critism.
minnie moan a lot
Report this comment

Let us not lose sight of the fact the the 50 million is SIW's ball and it has to be in play in his Court. He made that very clear at the meeting on the 17/02/10 when nothing other than what he wished would be considered, and dismissed the Peacock plans out of hand. What I object to is neither SIW/Acsef will come clean and say what they intend doing when they destroy the park - car park? retail?hotel?concrete plaza with some bushes??? Any half-decent philanthropist would not, cynically, have put the boot in Peacock's plans. So, maybe, He is not the philanthropist people think but a Philistine.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.